# Development/testing issues ## [Beaker test framework](https://fedorahosted.org/beaker) Should we start configuring a dedicated testing framework for OpenVPN? This idea will be presented by _mattock_. - **Rationale** - Would allow testing that OpenVPN works on a large number of predefined platforms and configurations. - Replaces part of the manual testing effort by testing the external behavior of the application automatically. - Would allow spotting bugs early. - **Implementation ideas** - Beaker could perhaps be made to simulate poor connections for testing purposes. If not, there are plenty of tools and services available for this purpose (see full chatlog). - **Limitations** - Only tests for external behavior of the application. - Does not replace human testing for those classes of problems which are difficult/impossible to test programmatically. ## Continuous integration server Should we build a continuous integration (CI) / automated release management server? This idea will be presented by _mattock_. - **Rationale** - Would allow spotting build problems early on by building "allmerged" and reporting developers of build problems. - Would reduce developer frustration. - Would allow automated packaging of OpenVPN-testing for various platforms and publishing those on a web server. - The above would translate to increased use of OpenVPN-testing, leading to earlier bug reports and would thus make the release process (new code -> acceptance to testing -> acceptance to stable -> release) faster. - Could also allow centralized automated searching of code problems. - **Implementation ideas** - Developers could be notified of problems using email. - The OpenVPN project has a license to [Coverity](http://www.coverity.com/) service. As this service has an API, Coverity code analysis could be integrated into the CI server. - **Limitations** - Does not replace human testing. - Only tests the build process (and possibly code problems). ## Developer bounties Should we have a bounty system for writing missing features? Similar systems are in use by several other projects, e.g. freeswitch, pfSense, and Funambol. This idea will be presented by _ecrist_. - **Rationale** - Would allow users to prioritize feature additions through compensation. - Would help achieve greater interest of developers in users' requests and needs. - **Implementation ideas** - Bounty funds would be set up and maintained by a non-developer (ecrist?) and held. This assures payment upon completion and assures the feature is completed before bounty is paid. - Multiple users could fund a bounty for intensive feature additions which may warrant higher payouts. - Developers set up accounts and 'claim' tasks. - After a specific timeout, a task becomes available to another user, unless progress can be shown. - Payment could be divided into multiple phases to motivate developers to maintain the code they've written. For example: - 50% payout for a commit to the main tree. - 25% upon release in production (provided bugs are fixed/etc). - 25% 6 months after release (provided bugs are fixed/etc). - The above would also guarantee the quality of the code. - Handling monetary transactions: - Could be handled through an external foundation/organization (e.g., [SPI](http://www.spi-inc.org/projects)). - We could establish our own foundation for this purpose. - Licensing and copyright: - Developer would have to use the BSD license for the bounty features. - This would allow the project to relicense the code under GPLv2 (while mentioning the original author). - This would allow both developer (payee) and payer to use the code any way they wish.